Comments on: Rubio: “I’m Done” If Gays Included In Immigration Billhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/13/56538
News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoricFri, 31 Jul 2015 17:14:55 +0000hourly1By: Priya Lynnhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/13/56538/comment-page-1#comment-279104
Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:02:39 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56538#comment-279104Timothy said “And many people believe that the right to access of services supersedes the right to refuse service.”.

Of course it does. Not having access to services is more oppressive (potentially greatly more oppressive as history shows)on a person than doing once again the same job one has always done is. Its a matter of balance. The oppression caused by being denied service is much greater than the oppression caused by being asked to do once again the same thing you’ve willingly done hundreds or thousands of times in the past.

Logically the right to access service supercedes the right to refuse service (for reasons other than being an abusive customer) because that is the best balance of rights. The fact that a person may want to refuse service due to religious beliefs is irrelevant. A belief does not deserve respect or deference just because its religious.

]]>By: Lord_Byronhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/13/56538/comment-page-1#comment-279018
Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:15:56 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56538#comment-279018Tim, did you read the article that you linked? The plaintiffs are 4 straight men and five gay men. Just felt like pointing that out and based on the history of lawsuits against the bar this will probably fail. Having said that if the charges of forcing them to work without breaking and falsifying hours are true then the bar should pay, but on the other accounts I don’t feel so. This is a gay bar and I disagree with the lawyer that is representing them.

I also feel that the religious beliefs of the employer do not super-cede the rights of the employee. My views are complicated on many issues, but as our society shows we need anti-discrimination laws.

Timothy, hypothetically would you support the businesses right to fire an employee if you knew for a fact that by being fired the person would become homeless or lose access to life saving medical treatment because they no longer have insurance? They are being fired for being gay in this scenario.

]]>By: Priya Lynnhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/13/56538/comment-page-1#comment-278965
Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:36:25 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56538#comment-278965Yes, I don’t get how anyone thinks its too much to ask someone who provides a good or service to provide it to everyone. Its not like its some big deal to perform the same job you’ve done for hundreds or thousands of other people one more time, the idea that this is too much to ask is preposterous. On the other hand its easy to see why its unacceptable to refuse people service just because you don’t like their kind.
]]>By: Roberthttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/13/56538/comment-page-1#comment-278946
Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:17:28 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56538#comment-278946WOW, Timothy, that last post was a BIG “F YOU” to any person of color, women, poor people and everyone else who has been discriminated against. If it were up to your ideals black people would still not be able to move into your neighboorhood or work in your business or shop in your business, if you so deemed it.

You certainly show your republicn stripes in this one. “Everyone should have the right to discriminate against others if they wish”, so say Timothy Kincaid.

We differ on our basic philosophy about what a person may be forced by their government to do. I believe that freedom of association includes the freedom to be a bigoted jerk and hire or house people based on any set of idiotic criteria one believes reflects their views.

This is not as cut and dried of a situation as some believe. For example in California you cannot hire based on sexual orientation. Which means that gay establishments cannot decide that they only want gay employees.

And right now, a bar in West Hollywood is being sued by some former employees. They are straight and their complaint is that they were subjected to a sexually hostile working environment. They objected to pornography on televisions and the antics of go-go boys.

Another example is Roommate Matchers, a service in West Hollywood that for decades provided a means for people to find, screen, and select potential roommates. One of their selection criteria was orientation. This was a very much desired feature in West Hollywood when I used that service many years ago looking for a roommate. But such a screening criteria was deemed to be discriminatory and they were sued and banned from using any methods that would allow a customer to select a person based on orientation. They went out of business.

I understand that others believe that in society, we must all make concessions to accommodate others and that the rights of the potential employee not to be discriminated against supersedes the right of employers to hire whom they want. And many people believe that the right to access of services supersedes the right to refuse service.

I disagree. We needn’t debate it; all sides of this subject have been presented at BTB many many times.

HOWEVER, while I do not favor non-discrimination laws, I do believe that if our society is going to have non-discrimination laws, they should include the currently most visible and blatant subjects of discrimination: GLBT people. It makes no sense to say that one cannot discriminate against a person due to gender but you can due to orientation.

So I oppose extending the scope of non-discrimination protections. But I support extending the characteristics covered.

Which is why I support ENDA.

]]>By: Lord_Byronhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/13/56538/comment-page-1#comment-278795
Sun, 16 Jun 2013 00:14:48 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56538#comment-278795Timothy anti-discrimination laws do much more than that and you know that. We need anti-discrimination laws for such things as protecting individuals from being fired from work or being denied housing because of who they are dating.
]]>By: jerryhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/13/56538/comment-page-1#comment-278755
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:24:48 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56538#comment-278755Maybe we should tell Rubio that we aren’t impressed with his bigotry, coming as it does from a Cuban “Anchor Baby”
]]>By: Timothy Kincaidhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/06/13/56538/comment-page-1#comment-278657
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 01:17:39 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=56538#comment-278657Mark, yes exactly. I’m not a big fan of non-discrimination laws in general. I have a hard time being indignant when a photographer or baker won’t give up their own views to appease my views.

But Rubio is pretty much an ahole on the issue and throws out the old “special rights” line.

It isn’t the principle of freedom of association or the right to autonomy of ones labor that he champions. No, he just thinks Teh Ghey are vile sinners who need to be fully aware of society’s contempt.